Table of content
At the same time, provisions of the guidance are non-binding in their legal nature, nor are they intended to introduce new rules or impose new obligations. Moreover, the authority explicitly states that an alternative approach could be applied, provided such an approach is in line with the existing legal framework and has been agreed with the authority in advance.
As explained in the document, the design of a long-term neurodevelopmental safety evaluation should be carefully planned to consider what assessments are most appropriate, when they should be conducted, and how long they should continue. The decision on whether to conduct a comprehensive neurodevelopmental evaluation or to focus on specific domains depends on the considerations discussed in previous sections (IIIA and IIIB).
When planning these evaluations, sponsors must choose validated tools that provide rigorous and reliable results, particularly in terms of neurologic function and clinical outcomes. The protocol must specify whether assessments are conducted as part of standard clinical care or solely for research purposes, with a thorough benefit-risk analysis conducted for any research-related interventions to ensure ethical compliance.
It is also important to recognize that general developmental screenings and formal neurodevelopmental assessments are not interchangeable; the latter requires more precision and validation to capture meaningful data about a child’s development.
Timing of Safety Evaluations
The authority explicitly states that when conducting long-term neurodevelopmental safety evaluations, timing is crucial. Outcomes should generally be evaluated at a minimum of two years adjusted age, but evaluations at earlier or later stages may also be necessary depending on the nature of the product and the concerns it raises.
- Early and Longitudinal Evaluations
Certain assessments can be reliably performed during the first two years of life and should be monitored longitudinally. These evaluations include measurements of head growth, hearing and vision tests, neurological exams, and developmental milestones. These early assessments provide critical insights into potential early safety signals and help establish baseline neurodevelopmental health.
- Comprehensive Outcomes at Two Years
At a minimum, a comprehensive evaluation of neurodevelopmental outcomes should occur at two years of adjusted age. This age is significant as it allows for the assessment of critical cognitive, motor, and sensory development, which may not be fully apparent in earlier stages of life.
- Later Childhood Follow-Up
Subtle but important cognitive, language, and behavioral outcomes may not become evident until later childhood, typically between four and six years of age. Therefore, even in the absence of neurodevelopmental concerns observed at the two-year mark, longer follow-up evaluations may still be warranted. This is especially true for detecting issues such as learning difficulties or behavioral disorders, which often emerge as children grow older.
Key Characteristics of Measurement Tools
As further explained in the document, for long-term safety evaluations to be meaningful, the measurement tools used must be well-defined and reliable. These Clinical Outcome Assessments (COAs) should assess clearly defined concepts of interest with appropriate justification for their use in neonatal long-term safety evaluations.
Additionally, these assessments should measure how a subject functions in daily life, providing practical insights into the child’s quality of life and neurodevelopmental progress.
Several key factors should guide the selection and implementation of measurement tools:
- Minimizing Participant Burden
Minimizing the burden on participants, particularly pediatric patients, is important to ensure compliance and prevent behavioral interference (such as refusal to participate in testing). Reducing the complexity and frequency of testing can help avoid invalid results and minimize missing data, making it more feasible to conduct long-term evaluations across large cohorts.
- Confounding Factors
Confounding factors, such as motor impairments that affect the ability to perform specific cognitive tasks, must be identified and accounted for to ensure accurate interpretation of assessment scores. For example, a cognitive assessment that relies on fine motor skills may yield unreliable results in children with motor impairments.
- Type of Scores
When using COAs that generate multiple types of scores (e.g., standardized norm-referenced scores, raw scores), it is important to select scores that are most appropriate for the study population. In populations at high risk for impairment, using several types of scores may be useful to avoid floor or ceiling effects, ensuring that both severely impaired and developmentally advanced children are appropriately assessed.
- Psychometric Properties
It is essential to use COAs that have strong psychometric properties, particularly when conducting multicenter studies. The tools should be validated for use across different demographic groups and available in languages suitable for global study sites. This ensures that results are generalizable across diverse populations.
- Applicability to Term and Preterm Infants
Selected COAs should be designed to assess both term and preterm infants using data from large representative populations. This is crucial for ensuring that assessments are appropriate for the developmental stages of the children being studied.
Domains of Assessment
When a comprehensive neurodevelopmental evaluation is needed, it should encompass a wide range of physical, mental, and social health domains. The following domains are commonly included:
- General Health
- Physical Health: Including assessments of ongoing health conditions such as seizure disorders, pulmonary conditions, and renal impairment. Somatic growth (height, weight, head circumference) and feeding issues should also be monitored. Sleep patterns and disturbances can provide additional insights into general health.
- Quality of Life and Global Function: These assessments measure how the child functions in daily life and how their health conditions impact overall well-being.
- Developmental Interventions and Educational Services: The receipt of developmental services, such as physical therapy or special education, should be recorded to understand their impact on neurodevelopmental outcomes.
- Neurodevelopment
- Sensory: This includes assessments of hearing and vision, which are critical for cognitive and language development.
- Motor Function: Both gross and fine motor skills should be evaluated, as motor development is closely linked to overall neurological health.
- Cognition: Cognitive assessments should measure problem-solving abilities, memory, and other intellectual functions.
- Emotional and Behavioral Health: Assessments of emotional regulation, mood, and behavioral issues are important for understanding the child’s social and psychological development.
- Communication/Language: The ability to understand and use language is a key developmental milestone that must be carefully tracked.
- Social Functioning: This includes assessments of social interactions and relationships with peers and family members.
- Adaptive Functioning: This domain measures how well the child is able to perform everyday activities, such as feeding, dressing, and communication.
- Relevant Covariates
When conducting long-term neurodevelopmental evaluations, it is important to assess relevant covariates, such as demographic variables and other factors that may change over time. Systematic data collection on these variables should be incorporated into the study plan to ensure that the data are appropriately contextualized. Relevant covariates might include factors such as socioeconomic status and environmental exposures.
Adjunctive Assessments
While adjunctive assessments and biomarkers may not substitute for direct neurodevelopmental outcomes, they can provide useful supplementary information. These assessments are often product-specific and may be especially relevant when there is a known signal of concern from earlier nonclinical studies or studies in different populations.
- Neuroimaging
Neuroimaging studies, such as brain MRI, can provide anatomical evidence of toxicity, such as disruptions in myelination. However, these imaging findings should be correlated with clinical outcomes to ensure they are meaningful.
- Neurophysiologic Testing
Neurophysiologic tests, such as visual-evoked responses or auditory brainstem-evoked responses, may help differentiate between central and peripheral nervous system injuries. Other potential tests include somatosensory evoked potentials, electromyography, and electroencephalography.
Conclusion
In summary, when planning long-term neurodevelopmental safety evaluations, sponsors must carefully consider the timing, tools, and domains of assessment to ensure that all relevant aspects of development are measured comprehensively. The use of well-validated and reliable measurement tools, combined with an understanding of relevant covariates and adjunctive assessments, can provide a holistic view of a product’s impact on neurodevelopment.
How Can RegDesk Help?
RegDesk is an AI-powered Regulatory Information Management System that provides medical device companies with regulatory intelligence for over 120 markets worldwide. It can help you prepare and publish global applications, manage standards, run change assessments, and obtain real-time alerts on regulatory changes through a centralized platform. Global expansion has never been this simple.
